I mean, the first one people do touch on, but not quite the same way I have an issue with.

1 - It's obvious that picking Bran was a double-ended 'surprise people' and 'wank off that we're writers who had a great story so deserve to be king', but in-universe the reasoning is just awful. There were people who complained that Jon shouldn't be a better candidate than Dany just because he lacked ambition, but him not having ambition was just a bonus.

He 'deserved' to be king not just because he didn't want it and not just because of his bloodline, but because he had experience leading people in both military and non-military situations, he was elected Lord Commander by his people, and then King in the North by his people - despite having no right to that title - and beloved by the Wildlings so much that they who would serve only one other person (and barely) were happy to hail Jon as a King. He has a raw charisma that connects with everyone he meets. Almost everyone ends up liking him, and if they don't it's usually because they have a personal problem of some sort. He has the love of his people, he's lived as a highborn but also as a misfit and reject of society, he's been a king and a Wildling, and his good nature and reputation would mean that at least most of Westeros would be content with him as a king if not openly supporting him (if Theon hadn't pointlessly died defending Bran, the Iron Fleet would have sided with him, not Dany, should it have come to it). Heck, even legendary creatures like direwolves and dragons seem to like him. The man doesn't want the throne, but people love him so much they keep shoving him into leadership positions - and generally when forced to lead he does a decent job of it, showing he also has leadership ability, not just love of people.

Bran has none of this. Bran did not really lead anything and lost Winterfell to Theon of all people. He has the personality of a wooden board and even his closest family members get creeped out dealing with him. No one is going to love Bran, he's not going to earn anyone's loyalty. He's just so blase about everything that even if he's working hard he's going to seem like he isn't and irritate people. All that he has is 'he doesn't want it' and 'he's so mild mannered some people might think he's Tommen 2.0 and easy to control'. It's terrible. Him being a Maester or Master of Whispers or something, sure, fine. He doesn't need leadership qualifications or the love of anyone to be useful there. Bran the Boring is not going to make a good king because his only appeal is 'he doesn't want it'. It's a bit sad that people reduced Jon's claim to the throne to him not wanting it just to make Dany look better, but don't really bring up that Bran is literally the thing they were complaining about, but without the noble backdrop.

(Also Edmure is mocked for deciding to vie for the throne and beginning to list off perfectly reasonable qualifications one might have for ruling. Excuse him for being practical, he wants the throne so he's an automatic 'no', apparently.)

2 - D&D were so determined to 'break cliches' and 'subvert expectations' that they trampled every romantic relationship in the entire series, and essentially any named relationship in their world. Go take a look at all the surviving characters we see onscreen in the finale. You may notice there are more than two people present. You may also notice there's only two people among the main cast (and honestly only one, Edmure shouldn't count) who are married.

Bran can't have children. Bronn has inherited the Reach but per this episode that is empty now, so has no wife lined up. Pod, Brienne, and Jon are sworn to celibacy, and there's no indication Jaime's super-seed worked on Brienne. Tyrion has explicitly stated that due to his hangups he can't bring himself to have sex - who knows, maybe they're implying he could with Sansa but they didn't bother to solidify it onscreen - Sansa is literally all alone in Winterfell, had awful marriages to everyone but Tyrion, has shown zero interest in anyone but him, and has not even a hint of who she might choose as a consort despite being Queen of the North. Arya decided she would stop being Hero of the North if she got married and it seems the Seed is Not That Strong with her either, so ran off without any indication of having any other man in the future, Gendry has shown interest in one person and got hard rejected - and Storm's End is apparently empty too. Robin has only shown interest in Sansa, and I'm thinking that's not going to happen. Yara - if she even likes guys in the show - has no male lined up at all for her, Tormund didn't appear to take the Winterfell girl with him, and got rejected by the big woman of his dreams. Davos - while he maybe?? has kids still? - is too old for more kids.

Heck, even the minor characters aren't indicated to have kids or marriages. Unnamed Prince is not mentioned to be married. Greyworm is going to die but also can't have kids and lost his girlfriend anyway. Daario despawned from being in an unloaded chunk. Ellaria and that Septa will just starve or something. Half the North, including the Mormonts, are just straight up dead.

Could they be married one day? Could they have kids one day? Sure. But it'd be even more stuff offscreen. And if they were then the argument that 'well if they settled down and got pregnant it'd be cliche!' is pretty dumb, because ...it happened anyway? Why is it less cliche if it happens offscreen?

I mean, look. Westeros is all about families, bloodlines, children and heirs. I get that somehow they think throwing the world into a crisis every time a king dies unexpectedly is somehow better than a line of succession, but every visible house at the end of the show is basically slated for destruction at this point. And the North is still following lines of succession, not a republic. Why is Sansa not getting married to unite the North, or ensure the South doesn't try to conquer the North later, or just to make sure the Starks don't die out when the handful of Stark kids left kick it?

Is Brienne's family okay that their daughter now can't inherit their lands or get married or mother children? Is House Tarly going to accept the child of a wildling and a member of the Night's Watch who renounced all claim to his lands (and didn't get freed by death)? Is everyone in the North okay with their heroes (Jon, Arya, and Sansa) having no children and not continuing their name or line? Why does Gendry being legitimized matter if he doesn't have a wife to continue the Baratheon name with? Why is it a good thing that the Lannisters and Starks will just end because of a lack of children instead of merging via marriage and children? Why should Arya refuse to raise up children to think like her instead and change the world by shaping its future generations? Can Edmure Tully really manage to repopulate the Riverlands all through the power of his own pelvic maneuvers?!

I think it's wild how the Starks can end up ruling the south, the north, the far north, and be the only ones going west (at least none ended up in Essos yet, maybe Arya will rule that when she finds out their world is round?) are completely believable, but unprotected sex resulting in pregnancy, or years of romantic feelings resulting in a marriage, that would just be cliche and unbelievable.

2.5 - I disdain the concept that Arya or Brienne or Sansa marrying or having children would somehow make them less warriors, less independent, or too 'feminine' somehow. It doesn't make men less manly or valorous to be married, so why do women get robbed of all development and become 'baby factories' or 'just about men' if they get married or have kids?

That is by far my biggest WTF from this season. Every episode has brought up situations that should have immediately caused interesting conversations between the characters with major plot implications, and yet most of them either happened offscreen or don't seem to have happened at all.

Every episode has brought up situations that should have immediately caused interesting conversations between the characters with major plot implications, and yet most of them either happened offscreen or don't seem to have happened at all.

100% agreed, A good example is that Jon spends almost 3 whole episodes, 50% of the damn season, trying to decide whether to tell Sansa and Arya he's a secret Targaryan, eventually meets them in the godswood; "ok Bran, you tell them" IMMEDIATE scene change.

No; "You must be kidding"
No; "I'm not sure people are going to believe you."
No; "So that was why Dad would never say who your mum was."

About that... Bran's actor talked about a deleted scene once. In it, Sansa asks Bran for help -against- Arya. He boots up his bran-o-vision and tells her that LF set everyone up. So Arya really did threaten to scalp Sansa, and Sansa really was going to put Arya on trial. They truly were fighting against each other until Bran fixes everything off screen. Think about it, if the sisters were just putting on an act for LF's sake, why were they threatening each other in private?

So it was all bullshit for a big SURPRISE! scene at the trial. Where LF suddenly starts having a stroke before Arya puts him out of his misery. Because subversion.

It's bothersome because in the long run the only importance of that revelation WAS his family's reaction to it, and they took that away. I mean, even Bran gets so surprised by this he emotes for a little while, so why would we assume Arya and Sansa's reactions just aren't worth seeing?

This was genuinely infuriating. The show became more about characters and moments—rather than sociological forces—when we ran out of books, yet we didn't really get any sign of how Jon, and others, processed his being Rhaegar and Lyanna's son. This is some of the stuff I'd most been looking forward to. And it happened off screen.

The show became more about characters and moments—rather than sociological forces—when we ran out of books, yet we didn't really get any sign of how Jon, and others, processed his being Rhaegar and Lyanna's son.

I know that "GoT became a psychological story instead of a sociological one" analysis piece is very popular right now (although I'm not sure it's entirely accurate), but the real issue is that the show didn't even manage to become a good psychological story, particularly in its later episodes. Arguably, the characterization, psychological exploration, and character arcs from early on, when the story was a bit more 'sociological' had a hell of a lot more weight and depth than what's been going on recently. (Look at Eddard, Dany, the conflicts between Tyrion, Cersei, and Joffrey, The Hound, Brienne, Arya, Jaime's earlier development, etc.)

Recently, character development has been backtracked (look at how Jaime's arc, which has been very tied up with getting away from Cersei and finding something else to live for, got crash-landed, for instance), character changes were rushed to be suddenly shocking twists (Dany, natch), and things that could have been huge bombshells or kicked off interesting emotional turmoil (because we're supposedly focusing on the psychology of the characters more) are revealed to people who should have reactions either entirely offscreen or they simply don't get a reaction. (The scene where the new king, the split of the North, and the various other appointments are made with virtually no real arguments is hilarious.)

This is actually quite an interesting point. Finding out the secret of Jon's parentage should ideally give Arya and Sansa a completely new perspective on what/who their father was as a person and the absolute sacrifice he made in the name of his family. I mean, obviously they loved their dad anyway, but there's an extra level of redemption in there for Ned in the eyes of his children, his one transgression transformed into his greatest and most selfless act, and we don't even get a reaction.

AlaerysTargaryenIn this world only winter is certain.13 points14 points15 points 3 months ago

All those letter Varys wrote for nothing. Another user suggested that they should have tried Jon as well and offered him kingship as the same "punisment" Tyrion got, he should have rejected with "send me to the Wall, and that would have made a better conclusión.

Mate, they didn't even bring up the fact that daenerys sacked the city after they surrendered. Watch the episode again, nobody tells her that, not even Jon. She doesn't justify herself in this episode, cause there is nobody accusing her.

Jon kind of dug into her for massacring women and children, and he mentions that they're killing Lannister soldiers in the streets. Not quite the confrontation it should have been though. Then again, he murders her a moment later.

He says there are burned children out there and lannisters soldiers getting executed in the streets. She says "It was necessary" at which point Jon should have been screaming at the top of the lungs "THEY HAD SURRENDERED!!!".

But he didn't. He just kinda kept mumbling instead of making a coherent point.

I think because he was less confronting Dany at this point, and more simply fighting with himself over killing her, looking for some excuse to let her go. But of course Dany just encouraged him to do it without realizing she was convincing him to kill her.

Honestly this is another huge problem with this season, especially with them trying (and failing spectacularly) to make it more character focused. On top of of course changing characters motivations on a whim or just completely forgetting it. (Poor poor Jamie....)

They pretty much skipped or bungled their way through all of the good character moments/interactions all season. No Stark reaction to Jon's real parentage/name. No extreme anger at Dany's actions. No hints that Bran planned all this out to become King. The supposed rekindling of Tyrion and Sansa's relationship getting dropped during the finale. Dany just accepting Jon is a Targaryen even after bringing up really good points as to why she doesn't believe it and then an episode later believing it with no reason for the change. On top of many many others.

Like honestly how good of a scene would it have been for Bran to show Dany/Jon through the weirwood.net Lyanna and Rheagars marriage and the Tower of Joy to put the argument to bed completely? How else would you be able to convince Dany that Jon is a Targaryen anyways? For all she knows Jon is Eddards and Ashara's kid if she looks into it or is really just some bastard if she doesn't.

I agreed with you as my first thought, but then I remembered that Grey Worm would never have even let that conversation get past the first sentence. It was ridiculous enough that he let them elect Jon's brother who he knew would let him off easy. They'd never have let Jon go if the Lords would have have elected him king, and I think everyone there probably knew that. The whole gathering was about getting Jon out of captivity and putting an end to the 2 minute long siege (lol). He was imprisoned for killing their Queen, his own Queen. The Unsullied weren't about to free him only and see him be made king as well, they'd have executed him first. I know it was rushed so we didn't get a good sense of their thinking, but the remainder of Dany's horde was mad as hell. They'd followed her from Essos, she'd freed a lot of them from slavery, she was the Khaleesi to the Dothraki (speaking of which, wouldn't her blood riders have killed him immediately then killed themselves?) And she'd made them all promises of conquest and riches. The scene just didn't convey how tedious Jon's situation was. He's lucky to have made it out at all.

the remainder of Dany's horde was mad as hell. They'd followed her from Essos, she'd freed a lot of them from slavery, she was the Khaleesi to the Dothraki (speaking of which, wouldn't her blood riders have killed him immediately then killed themselves?) And she'd made them all promises of conquest and riches.

You wouldn’t know it from this episode or even this season. They did a bad job depicting any type of tension during that meeting.

The scene just didn't convey how tedious Jon's situation was. He's lucky to have made it out at all.

I'd say they made it pretty tedious.

But you mean tenuous.

That said, really nothing is stopping them from immediately electing Jon the minute Greyworm leaves. It would not go well for the Unsullied if they tried to come back and take Westeros by landing on their shores with no leader but angry Greyworm, and the Dothraki are just straight up not crossing the Narrow Sea a third time when they can instead go pillage Essos in peace.

I completely agree, and said almost the same thing in the post show thread. What was to stop Bran from pardoning Jon the minute Dany's horde set sail and made it over the horizon? Nothing really, except for I guess Jon's honor. Really though, "I dun wannit" jokes aside, I think that given what they've shown of Jon I believe he'd be happiest heading back to the far North and wouldn't complain at all about having to head back up there.

I think it's not terrible for Jon to go wherever he wants, like Arya, but he shouldn't be exiled and forced to 'never bear land or wives or children'. Sure he's probably not interested in romance, but why should the man be forced to be alone, separate from his family, and never get to have his own family just because some foreign army who just got done massacring innocents got angry that he stopped a despot from murdering more people?

It really should have been, because you could just feel it hanging in the air. It's clear that D&D just wanted to subvert expectations though, and if anyone suggested Jon there was no way Tyrion would sell Bran the Broke.

It would have been easy to do and could still have the same result. Someone nominates Jon citing everything you mentioned and more, Grey Worm says that he and the Unsullied will execute him before it comes to that since Jon murdered the last monarch and they still settle on exile. But at least now we'd have someone acknowledge Jon at the very least.

In large part, this is why I think if the series does end with Bran on the throne, it will be by some sort of proxy or delayed means. Having it as expressed in the show definitely makes no sense.

I suspect it's likelier that Jon will kill Dany and have the backing of the North men when he does so, in order to prevent the inevitable Jon murder by Rageworm and the Dothraki. But I suspect that he'll still be imprisoned and monitored after the fact. They'll finally settle with all of the conflict, and the grand council will be summoned again, this time with Bran as the heir to Winterfell (Presuming that by this point Robb's will has legitimized Jon as his heir, crowning him as King in the North and Lord of Winterfell), and he'll drop the bomb to the lords in the grand council. Howland Reed will finally show up to corroborate it, and maybe Benjen Stark survives his ranging to help as well.

So, for a moment, Jon is accepted as king by that council. But he refuses it. He decides that he has no right to rule when he bent the knee but still killed his queen. He once again takes the black.

Queue chaos, and our Lord of Casterly Rock making a speech urging the leaders to accept Jon's heir as the rightful king. I do think Bran will have much more agency in the books, and so his connection to the ending will be more meaningful. Maybe he'll broker a new peace with the Others, and that will be used as a diplomatic justification for him being named king.

Or any other number of ways George may try to write the story. I do think we'll have our Fisher King on the throne at the end, though.

Especially when Tyrion A) wheedled out of Jon the confession that what Dany did was wrong, and B) actually convinced him to kill her despite his love for her. Wasn’t that yet another example of Jon not wanting the power or to lose another person that he loves, but doing the right thing anyway just because it needs to be done? How is that a lesser example of his capacity for leadership and statecraft than Bran’s “story”?

I can't see the future at all from where we get left. It's like they reached a stasis point and dropped it on a freeze frame, which is so un-ASOIF.

Is this the end of the Starks? Is this the beginning of a great new dynasty of Starks? I have no idea.

Peope tend to connect to stories through some combination of three paths: characterization, plotting or worldbuilding. ASOIAF had all three but at the end of the show we have none. I can't get a sense of the plot, the people or the world. HOW THE FUCK DID THE REACH GET DEPOPULATED? Did Drogon burninate the ENTIRE countryside? If he did then boy we needed to know that.

I can't see any future for Westeros from where we've been left and that makes me profoundly angry and sad.

I agree. Can't remember the exact wording, but one of the things Martin said about the ending of LOTR is how he wasn't satisfied with Tolkien just saying that Aragorn went on to be a good King and people loved him (WHAT WERE HIS TAXES!?). How's this ending any different to that? What was Sansa's tax plan?

Yeah, but it was always a really dumb and pedantic point from GRRM. No matter where you end the story, you can always ask "BUT WHAT HAPPENED NEXT!?". And even stupider, you can ask the question about something trivial and tangential to the point of the story.

In fact that oft-quoted anecdote reveals a lot about George's inability to bring scope-focus to his story or ever finish it.

There is no possible ending, save the destruction of Planetos that won't leave a bunch of "yeah, but what about TAXES!?" questions if you want to go there.

His question really just boils down to 'but would Aragorn be equipped to rule in peacetime and handle the dramas involved in cleaning up after a war, or is he only good as a wartime king?' It's easier to solve that question than it is pedantic details like the taxes themselves.

I haven't read the books yet, but I always took that quote as meaning that he's more interested in the day-to-day operations of a Fantasy setting. In LOTR the lore is very mythical in nature, you have entities of incredible power at play.

In GoT (and I suppose, ASOIAF) the story is much closer to our own history I feel. Sure, there are Fantasy elements to it with the Children of the Forest being invaded by humans, Targaryens using dragons, etc. But it's still a story of people and dynasties.

It's almost sad that of ALL EPISODES they kind of forgot to have an inside special for the series finale. Where they could have at least told us off-screen what happened with some of that stuff. It's no excuse for not having it on screen, but at least it'd be out there.

I have a running theory that they froze all the characters' developments at either 'where the books stopped' or 'the most likely coasting point from where the books stopped' so it makes some sense they'd be unable to work out where an ending-future might go with the world and characters and would freeze-frame it instead, but it's still...bad. That joke video with the 80s credits may be silly, but at least it establishes what happens after the jokes about brothels, and what Jon's even doing.

I don't even understand how the Reach just got snapped out of existence, but I'm beginning to think everything you don't see in the opening just poofs and takes its population with it, so while it can be mentioned from time to time, it's empty.

And I mean, it would make more sense if relationships we actually saw built up over ten years had some kind of satisfying conclusion, but even just showing these characters with random extras as trophy spouses would be better than forgetting that people eventually die and need children to not end their whole family line.

It's almost sad that of ALL EPISODES they kind of forgot to have an inside special for the series finale. Where they could have at least told us off-screen what happened with some of that stuff. It's no excuse for not having it on screen, but at least it'd be out there.

My guess is that they're saving it for next week's behind-the-scenes documentary. They're hoping people like me who have a renewal date on Saturday will sign up for another month of HBO.

Television writers think visually. Their whole conceptualization is based on symbolism and visual metaphors. They care more about what looks cool than what makes sense. Their approach to storytelling is one of key scenes rather than logic.

The books of A game of Thrones focused on an epic story. There were great houses, noble causes, ancient evils and the characters were but the current players in a multi generation story.

Unfortunately when they ran out of book material D&D reverted to classic Hollywood storytelling. Focused on the individual, emotional power and personal goals.

We went from Jon being a part of a Saga to Now this is personal. The focus on his growth, introspection and personal goals or lack there of. Similar with the other characters.

Which is why the Hollywood ending is so dismal and illogical. We got great visuals. Strong scenes. But ultimately everyone is alone, the kingdom is in shambles and everything they and their ancestors built the foundation of their culture has been discarded.

This is a tragic ending. The way GOT ended basically spells the end of Westeros. Or at least any kind of Westeros we recognize or liked

Unfortunately when they ran out of book material D&D reverted to classic Hollywood storytelling. Focused on the individual, emotional power and personal goals.

This is exactly the problem. Even with poor adaptions you can still see a structural difference between a tv show following a book and a tv show playing off of itself. The closer it follows the books the more stark the difference, but just on a fundamental level it's different. Choices aren't made based on shocking the viewer with cliffhangers every season, things aren't done just for cool explosion moments that people can turn into gifs, it's not written to be handled one episode/chapter at a time, and not dictated by budget concerns like 'we can't add to the cast because we don't have enough money, or bring back this character because we don't have the actor'.

Ultimately the story is almost always stronger and more compelling when it's following a book instead of being its own movie or show. And GoT got so popular because it followed the books very closely, essentially subverting all normal expectations of tv shows simply by following a book format instead of hollywood format. As it moved away from the books, it went more and more into 'dramatic moments' instead of 'a dramatic story' right up until all of the Red Keep COLLAPSES in 8x05 and then 'eh it's not so bad in 8x06, and Arya symbolically rides out of the city on a pale horse at the end of ep5 only to peel off the horse face and reveal it was just Arya walking all along, no horse, in the next episode. And the symbolic nature to mean nothing because actually it just looked cool.

game of thrones deserved a full stand alone epilogue episode on top of all the character and plot development episodes we missed. They crammed the build up, the climax, and the epilogue to a show thats been running for YEARS into one episode. How could they think they could possibly work? They probably didn't they just didn't give a fuck. Game of Thrones gave them the resume they needed for Disney to hire them. Its purpose was fufilled and they killed it as unceremoniously as they killed Littlefinger.

Sansa is pretty much the only Stark I can envision having children if we're just looking at the show and the choices D&D made in regards to the surviving Starks' fates. Even then though, I think her story mirrors Queen Elizabeth I. I really can't see her getting married and view her reign as Queen in the North as somewhat of a final golden age for the Starks (similar to the Elizabethan Era) before they cease to exist (Elizabeth not having children resulted in the end of the Tudor dynasty). Kinda sad but it's how I see it.

I personally believe in the books that a Tyrion/Sansa marriage is most likely because it's far less likely for the ending to be the idyllic one that we got, and uniting the Lannisters/Starks or North/South in a marriage is more likely to be something politically necessary than was so in the show.

I also think that ending for Sansa is extremely plausible, however, a Jon and Sansa marriage would also be uniting the North/South, as Sansa is a Stark and Jon a Targ. Politically it makes sense and would be bittersweet for both characters, as it would give them something they always wanted (Sansa a family/the ability to be Queen and Jon a family/the ability to be legitimized) but at a time when they may no longer want it.

The thing about this is that with the suitor theory for Sansa being quite popular (and probably correct, like come on Hardyng?) after fAegon gets married to Arianne Martel most likely (and then turned to ash during the razing of Kings Landing) Jon would be the only unmarried Targaryen male left to complete it....

Is Westeros the same as the actual world in that the name is carried on by the sons, not daughters?

If so, that means the Stark like is assuredly dead after the current Starks die.

Bran can't have kids. Sansa and Arya won't keep their names even if they DO get married. Jon was the only hope. Bran could have declared him a Stark and kept the line going but they fucked that up by sending him North to the Nights Watch.

Edmure: gives arguments, tells his opinion is a civilised manner, gets a discussion going even though he might not be a favourite
Everyone: lol shut up Edmure this is pathetic haha wtf are you doing
30 seconds later
Tyrion: uh so I guess Bran should be king cause uh... he has a good story? aye
Everyone: sure why not, aye :)
And this is how the most important political decision in the history of Game of Thrones was taken.

Basically. Honestly all of them erupting at once into shouting over who deserved the throne (Robin about wanting milk) would have made more sense than everyone awkwardly looking at each other and then mocking Edmure for starting the conversation out. I mean, gosh. They could have let him say his piece and then had other people follow after giving their own choices for king and why.

They still could have ended with SUBVERSION by having Tyrion's speech for Bran win them over, but it would have been a more believable scene if people tried.

for some reason they took the one scene in the book about him wanting to win a battle and decided that because of that they were gunna turn him into the butt monkey of the show; "Haha can't fire a flaming arrow at a boat." "Haha he doesn't get that he shouldn't want to be king anymore." "Haha, he's the only one married."

"Haha, he's the only one with a future." but yes, I don't really get why they were like 'let's strip all his redeeming values and just lol jokes him all the time'. Sure he failed to fire the arrow, but in the book there was a good reason for it. In the show it was just for comic relief.

I dunno what they have against Edmure, but at this point I have to assume it's that he got married.

I'm not clear that half of the people there even knew who the fuck Bran was? So bizarre... his character development was halted as soon as he got back to Winterfell, and he only had a few lines of dialog.

So all of these people agree to elect him king at the suggestion of Tyrion, who was a prisoner for treason.

Granted he was prisoner for treason against a queen who slaughtered King's Landing and publicly made it clear that was why he betrayed her, so anyone but the most staunch Dany loyalist really shouldn't count that against him.

I mean, honestly Tyrion, almost EVERYONE has a better story than Bran, that's why GoT ignored him for literally a full season because D&D were so bored with them they hoped he'd despawn if no one looked at him.

I really feel like they were trying to angle for 'well Bran can tell the best stories due to having literally all stories ever' but even if that were true and Tyrion rambled about Bran the Broken for no reason, that's still no basis for a system of government.

I really feel like they were trying to angle for 'well Bran can tell the best stories due to having literally all stories ever'

The only contribution he’s made is resurrecting an antique wheelchair design. If he’d told a single story of consequence, ever, then maybe we can buy that the Lords of Westeros could at least compromise on him, but he’s redundant.

Rickon's story is great, it's just a tragedy. A young boy torn from his family, dragged around the kingdoms and pried away from his brother, wishing he could just do something only to have his wolf killed in front of him, his only guardian left killed, and be tormented and possibly tortured in his own home, and then make it only a few steps away from the family he was torn from before being killed. Before he could even touch his older brother's hand. And then he just dies, lying there on the field, all alone, no older than like....10.

Rickon's story in the books really interests me. I wanna know what he's been up to in Skagos, if his connection with Shaggydog has grown stronger, if he's become more of a 'wild wolf' than his uncle Brandon, if he has any greensight powers himself, if he ends up back in Winterfell at all...the list could go on. I just hope his isn't a shaggy dog story, and that there's an actual satisfying direction that his story is headed in.

the weird thing to me is... everyone has been creeped tf out by bran the last two seasons or whenever he came back. he just sits there staring off into the distance and giving 1-2 word creepy answers. claims he’s not bran anymore, he’s “the three eyed raven”, etc. why in the FUCK would they elect this person to be king?

It doesn't make any sense. I mean, it went beyond 'the audience thinks he's being creepy' to 'everyone is genuinely creeped out by him but can't put their finger on why'. Why would they elect someone no one really likes except his family, who has no claim to ruling the kingdoms and no leadership qualities or experience, and who is just so intrinsically unlikable that it freaks people out? I mean honestly Gendry would be a better choice because he hasn't done anything to freak anyone out except Arya and he actually participated in the battle against the undead.

He might not be any good as a king, but apparently that wasn't a qualification for the throne anyway.

I honestly think D&D might have done another expectation subverting switcharoo like Arya killing the night king where they swapped Bran and Jon’s endings. Bran the Builder becomes lord commander and rebuilds the wall and Jon becomes king makes sense. I’m guessing the hasty wrapping up of the Kings landing siege minus the fAegon and Dorne dynamics resulted in Jon’s ending being warped to cover over plot holes.

I could suspend my disbelief for the people who know him wanting it, but everyone else at the council? I hardly think so. Even if they have Bran prove his 3ER powers, they still have no idea who he is. Hell, if he wanted to, those powers could be used for “evil”. If he’s really this all-seeing being, why on earth would they make him the most powerful person in Westeros?

Gendry - Gives the Baratheon line hope, mopes around rejecting marriage proposals because Arya broke his heart, dies leaving Storms End in the hands of some dipshit Estermont.

Yara - Just one of the guys, thinks babies are stupid and terrible fighters, dies in a barfight ending her line.

Bran - Can't father children and even if he could he doesn't really want pussy anymore, names Sam's kids his beneficiaries, spends most of his time following Drogon around with ravens.

Tyrion - Dies from the pox within the next year.

Bronn - Produces a massive family, rivaling the extinct House Frey, goes out for cigarettes and doesn't come back.

Meera - Spends quite a bit of time thinking about how she dragged Bran around and didn't even get a t-shirt, commits suicide. Her father could not be reached for comment.

Daario - Becomes drinking buddies with Drogon, they enjoy each other's company but they both try to avoid talking about Dany, Daario wakes one morning to find Drogon has left a clutch of eggs but no note, drinking intensifies.

Point 2 I can get on board with (there's no way George isn't going to go into immense detail about which houses are extinct and which marriage alliances the series ends with), point 1 you knocked it out of the park.

I'd say it's very likely. The main end points of the show are probably true for the books too:

Daenerys as mad queen goes on a rampage and destroys King's Landing.

Jon kills Daenerys (with may or may not have repercussions as per the Azor Ahai and Nissa Nissa prophecy)

Jon ends up living beyond the wall

Sansa is Queen in the North

Bran is King in the South

Those are probably some of the bullet points that GRRM gave them. Bran being king is so sudden in the show, and he is a character so underdeveloped (particularly in the last couple of seasons) in contrast with Jon and Daenerys, that something tells me D&D may have gotten caught out of guard with this when they were told how it'd end.

Bran being king is so sudden in the show, and he is a character so underdeveloped (particularly in the last couple of seasons) in contrast with Jon and Daenerys, that something tells me D&D may have gotten caught out of guard with this when they were told how it'd end.

Either that or they changed/didn't know who would hold the throne at the end (maybe GRRM doesn't know yet because that's not relevant to the end of the story he wants to tell, more like an epilogue). I mean, my feeling is that they went "ok, we made a big deal out of who gets the throne being a mistery, so it's now an important plot point we need to resolve, out of all of these main characters, who is the one people would least expect?", and they went with Bran because nobody would expect it, and nobody would expect it because it makes no sense.

Of course, with a properly told story, Bran as king could make sense. But they didn't even try that. If they had known from the start, they'd have focused more on his character after he comes back south.

I mean, my feeling is that they went "ok, we made a big deal out of who gets the throne being a mistery, so it's now an important plot point we need to resolve, out of all of these main characters, who is the one people would least expect?", and they went with Bran because nobody would expect it, and nobody would expect it because it makes no sense.

It was the only plot point after the Night King was eliminated. And even then, did anyone truly care at the end who was gonna sit on the Throne?

I struggled.

Such emphasis was (so superbly, I might add) placed upon the battle coming with the Night King and the White Walkers for years, that the actual Throne itself became obsolete. For me, all vs. the White Walkers was very exciting to me. It was what GoT had evolved into. And so grandiose was the buildup to that battle, coupled with a superb score and amazing cinematography, CGI etc. (even if the death of the Night King itself was a little underwhelming in the actual writing of the episode), I personally feel that they tried the surprise element of it being Bran to try and top the whole Night King/White Walkers story arc with abysmal effect.

His character is missing so many of the attributes a King would need, many of which are mentioned in the OP so brilliantly, but also include the ability to negotiate, a need to be intimidating at times, ruthless in others, the list goes on. It's a laughable decision for a fictional series that completely goes against common sense.

I also take exception to them all laughing at Sam's idea of a council, but then form A TEMPORARY COUNCIL to vote Bran the King!

I feel like D&D and probably HBO specifically made it so these houses and characters cannot/don't have children, eliminating the option of spin-offs or sequels (other than the forthcoming prequel) in future. It was very... final. And they exclaimed that to the audience with a volume of 12.

This is absolutely my feeling. I'm not upset about any of the plot points, but how we got there.

We had 8 seasons where who gets the Iron Throne was a topic of debate, a constant struggle, and we get one scene where Tyrion gives one speech and everyone's on board. Boom, done, solved. Bran is king - Bran, whom most of them have never met before and probably know nothing about.

I actually have wanted Sansa to end up Queen of the North for a long time, but do I like that she got it because of one line to Bran about how the North wants to be free? Absolutely not.

Jon going North to live a simple life is also great, but he goes because the Unsullied (who conveniently didn't kill him immediately) demanded he be punished...before leaving. It just doesn't make sense.

I feel like I read the bullet point summary on Wikipedia, not that I experienced the journey. I feel like I still don't know the story.

I have a bit of an issue with Sansa as Queen in an independent north a Bran as king of the 6 kingdoms that seems a bit of a stretch. It wouldn’t shock me to see the kingdoms all split up but they kept 6 united on the show because to them there was really only the north and the south. Everywhere else was just a place to mention on rare occasions or use to spawn extra soldiers.

with may or may not have repercussions as per the Azor Ahai and Nissa Nissa prophecy

I think it's very clear that he drove his "sword" (or dagger) through his lover's heart, and when it came out it was wreathed in flame (drogon's flame) which then saved the world from darkness (the iron throne).

I find it entirely possible that Sansa ends up Lady of Winterfell and/or Warden of the North, but it doesn’t make sense that the North ends with independence while the remaining kingdoms don’t and are ruled by someone from the newly-independent kingdom. Why would the other kingdoms allow a ruler (King Bran Stark) from the now-independent North? Why would the Six Kingdoms be fine that the North can be independent but they can’t? I believe D&D twisted Lady/Warden Sansa into Queen Sansa. It really just doesn’t fit

I mean, I guess? The main character points are supposed to be the same, but I have no idea how that's going to happen. Weren't there only like three Bran chapters in Dance? There's so little to go on to predict what path he'll take in the books. George loves the Targaryens to much that it's hard for me to believe he wouldn't go for a Targ restoration with Jon, but maybe it's supposed to be the close of their 300 year story with the Iron Throne destroyed and their bloodline finally dead. I guess the return of dragons wasn't meant to be either, then?

Thanks, and yeah, I think even if he goes with a similar 'restructuring the ruling format' revolution, there's no way a series like ASOIAF won't have a detailed focus on the kids, alliances, and marriages happen between the lesser houses and important (surviving) characters. He still lists which minor characters are maids and not at the end of every book. Just a callous 'no one gets married, everyone is alone' thing seems very unlikely even with a broken wheel.

Tropes, and even cliches, are not inherently bad. You just don't want to overuse or rely on them too heavily. But D&D very much forget that they exist because they're a part of good stories. Yes, it was expected that Jon would kill the NK or Jaime would kill Cersei or that someone other than Bran would be crowned, but that's because the story set it up that way. That was the payoff that was foreshadowed and prepared for years. When you cheat people for surprise you sacrifice two plotlines at once and make people just feel unsatisfied.

I mean, D&D isn't good at subversion, but on the face of it 'Bran sits on the (wooden) Iron Throne' sounds like the most random but arguably still 'good' ending they could come up with. Much like Arya killing the NK was (ie; Pod becoming king of the 6 kingdoms or killing the NK would be MORE surprising, but wouldn't have the same 'wow' factor or make the writer's happy using a Stark)

A great way to them to really shock the audience would have been to have the commoners get fed up with all the lords bullshit and just riot in the streets and kill all the lords who were picking the next king in a smoke filled room

2.5 is spot on. Keep in mind that Lyanna Stark is portrayed as being basically a perfect mix of Sansa and Arya- beautiful and feminine and intelligent while also being fiercely independent, training with weapons (to the point of able to compete with and win against men), and being a bit of a “tomboy” like Arya. Nobody holds it against her that she was beautiful or fell in love or was married.

The idea that the more warrior-like or independent female characters lose their identity by marrying or having families is ridiculous. It adds layers and complexity and makes them stronger. Catelyn defending Bran while unarmed against the assassin in S1 was fucking badass because she was a mother and she perfectly portrayed the primal rage and drive to defend her children in the face of death. Arya can’t portray that just by being a cool fighter.

Yeah, it's silly. Especially since as you point out in ASOIAF itself it addresses and dismisses the concept that somehow getting married or having kids weakens a woman. There was no question that Ygritte wasn't allowed to fall in love with Jon because she was a strong violent warrior woman, and in fact the Freefolk basically epitomize 'women who are strong and have children'.

I firmly maintain they misstepped with Arya's character from the moment (at least from then anyway) that they decided Arya choosing to marry Gendry would be akin to Nymeria being tamed. Arya might not want to be a lady, but that shouldn't preclude her from marrying him at all, especially if they've already established she has feelings for him. But then again, looking back, maybe they were trying to indicate that she was only attracted to him because being 'unfeminine' meant she had to be entirely sex driven and not romantically interested.

The most logical person to be the monarch in Kings Landing is Sansa. Jon doesn't want leadership positions, and he seems especially apprehensive about being King of the whole continent. He would accept leadership positions reluctantly because they lead to him gaining the support he needed to fight the White Walkers. Now that's over with, he really doesn't seem to care. Even going to KL with Daenerys was done solely out of loyalty and thanks to Dany not because he actually cared to go. Sansa has the loyalty and personal support of the Riverlands, Vale, and Westerlands. Gaining support from the Stormlands (Gendry) would be easy. Yara, even with Theon having died, would still be more likely to support Sansa after Jon declines one last time. Yara is aware of Theon's love and respect of all the Starks, Sansa and Jon especially. If not Jon, Sansa is the clear next most ideal candidate for the Throne. If Jon was present he would obvisously decline. He might even say something like, "Sansa is the one you want. She's gave as much as I did to protect the realm at Winterfell. She's survived things I never could have. She's the one you took Winterfell back from Ramsey. It wasn't me. Sansa is the one you want." It would make sense for him to say this because a) it's all true, b) he knows Sansa wants to rule and is capable.

That definitely fits better, yeah. And it would actually fill the council. Though I do think Sansa would end up marrying Tyrion if she were Queen of the 7K since it would strengthen her position, and so they'd need a different master of coin.

As to point 2, I don't think D&D ever really understood GRRM's writing in the sense that it defies convention. While GRRM's writing offered a story steeped in realism where anyone could die if they made the wrong decisions, D&D's takeaway was merely people like it when we subvert expectations.

The Red Wedding, Purple Wedding, Ygritte's death, Jon's death, Oberyn's death, the die wolves' deaths, etc. - these all made sense within the confines of the story.

D&D's surprises are not welcome (to me and ostensibly others that have been disappointed) because they make no sense. Character arcs make U-turns (Jaime, I'd argue Bronn too) or are sent into overdrive (Dany) seemingly in search of that shocking moment, as if the shock itself was the end that justified the means.

I agree completely. I've mentioned it a few times now that GRRM's writing is mostly only shocking in the sense that consequences happen even if they're dire, and even if they're to primary characters. He follows through on all of them, and that gets people killed because they live in a dangerous world. If he doesn't want them dead, he just ensures they're either not in a position to make that mistake, or that they don't make the mistake. D&D, not understanding secrets, plot threads, or overarching themes (since those are for book reports) only saw those 'shocking payoff moments' and ignored that they were payoff moments, not just moments.

They really needed at least 7 episodes if they were going to insist on this short format. A show like GoT, with as many characters and long term complex plots, needed a whole episode dedicated just to wrapping up the aftermath of the end, not like...a half hour rushed through after all the cool dragon-y stuff and Tyrion speeches. If they'd sat down and forced themself to write 60+ minutes of actual wrap-up they'd presumably eventually realize that they forgot to set up any future for Westeros beyond 'and now kings will be selected by vote except the North, and the Wall is still North Australia'.

They crammed half of a season into one finale. The process of sending out the word that Jon/Tyrion are captured and the creation of the Dragonpit meeting should have been an entire episode. Show the struggle to find who's in charge, show the politicking in picking who goes to the meeting, show the alliances that are created on the way.

Who brought everyone together? Why did Greyworm wait to decide the fate of Jon/Tyrion? How do you convince Greyworm to even attend the meeting? Is there food in the city? Are any smallfolk alive? How do you repair and live in the city of rubble?

Realistically it should have looked more like this if they wanted to not change their plot:

Season 7 has three more episodes in which they develop Dany/Jon, work out the war between her and Cersei without so many cheap plots, and give characters and plots more time to unfold without silly rushed/forced moments.

Season 8 has four more episodes in which they lengthen the long night and build on season 7 showing the cracks in Dany's sanity, allowing for the bells to be episode 9, and then end episode 10 on the cliffhanger of Jon killing Dany and being seized by Unsullied/ferried away somewhere safe by Davos but claimed to be in Unsullied hands in the hope of using Tyrion as leverage to get their hands on Jon.

Season 9 is now 10 episodes dealing with the fallout of KL, Dany's death, and all the politics involved in getting that meeting to happen, as well as debate over who should be king that lasts more than five minutes, and an episode or two dealing with the wrap up after they eject the Unsullied and Dothraki from Westeros for good. Perhaps even a moment where we see Naath's butterflies when Greyworm gets there. They can also deal with repairs to the city and things like political marriages and children in those two wrap up eps, too.

I don’t think the writers have the ability to handle all those stuff. Their idea of “exciting” show are grand battle scenes and Arya running down streets with falling buildings and surviving for no reason.
Let them write all the politics and planning it would be more boring than a lecture, and possibly even more plot holes.

The writers literally just needed to consult Reddit to get their script outline. I honestly do not understand why they declined additional seasons despite the offer from HBO. Did they just want full ownership of the show? We've seen changes in writers and other roles within other franchises, I just don't get it.

Like we get offhanded remarks about Tyrion cancelling the whole thing last season and in episode 1. Episode 3, he asks why they can't stay married and her only reason is "The Dragon Queen". Later that episode, they hold hands before going out to face the crypt wights (which goes nowhere), she tells him about Jon... and unless I'm forgetting something that's it? They don't have anything else outside of the trial/council scene, where they don't really interact.

Like you said, the writers are seemingly too preoccupied with the notion that "marriage=weakness/giving up agency". Want to actually show Sansa do something smart? Show her finding herself a good marriage alliance. Not even necessarily with Tyrion, though I do think Tyrion could have been a good move to show that off. Show she's moved past "I want a handsome, chivalrous husband... ew dwarf" to "what benefits me/my house most".

Tyrion and Sansa is so utterly confusing in this season it feels like there's some deleted scene from the finale that is meant to indicate they get together or something. Every scene with them seems to be some kind of weird banter or flirtation, 8x03 seems to be directly romantic, and I have heard people say - though not confirmed - that their marriage is in some way referenced every single episode up until the finale.

And then they just do...nothing with it. I don't understand what they were going for unless it was some weird subtle 'subversion' where they built up a romantic plot and then just quietly smother it without even pointing out that's what they're doing?

It makes sense. This is especially so because Sansa has never been allowed to decide who she married before. Robert and Ned agreed on Joffrey, Tywin effectively decided against it, and then decided on Tyrion, and then Littlefinger chose Ramsay. Why not let the girl who never had any romantic agency in her life decide for herself who she'll marry at the end? It didn't need to be Tyrion - though it was basically the only choice that wouldn't come out of nowhere or be purely political - but it would still be her flexing her agency. And as Queen in the North, anyone short of Jon wouldn't outrank her even if she married them.

She could have married the Dorne Prince to ensure she had his loyalty since he was with the 'Dany' faction, for instance. Or Robin to ensure she kept the Vale's support. Or heck, Tormund, to ensure the Freefolk stay on good terms. The point is, not marrying is leaving her arc incomplete and also leaving the really important question of 'so what happens with the North's succession' unanswered.

The smartest thing Sansa can do is offer a marriage alliance to Swolerobin. The Vale can be absorbed into the Kingdom of the North, with Sansa remaining the queen of winterfell and robin being the prince of winterfell and warden of the east. If Edmure also decides to join the North, like Robb and Cat planned initially all the way back in book 1, you end up with a Northern kingdom that includes the Vale and the Riverlands. That’s a powerful kingdom.

It makes sense, but D&D went out of their way to pretend cousin romance is weird to Starks - thus Jon's issue with Dany the whole season - so it seems unlikely for that to be the result in the showverse even though it would make political sense.

but D&D went out of their way to pretend cousin aunt romance is weird to Starks

otherwise the season would have been won and done by epsiode 3, ok the Night's King is down, lets get married, fly down to kings landing on our honeymoon, roast cersei alive being, careful of their huge navy on their way and dodge their huge ballistae, Dany's got love so no mad queen and Westeros has 2 rulers who can balance each other out well.

The idea of a Tyrion/Sansa marriage after the ending is definitely interesting, especially because of how complicated it is. He would serve as Hand in King's Landing while she would be Queen in another kingdom. It would definitely be a strategic alliance, and it's hard to imagine Bran being concerned with loyalties. They certainly wouldn't be spending much time together, but I doubt that's a problem.

Truly, Sansa should seek out a marriage alliance with a traditional Northern house. One of the Manderlys would be ideal for economic purposes, but the and Umber or Karstark (if there are any) would be good fits.

Hard agree with 2.5 - one of my favorite literary heroines, Sir Alanna of Trebond and Olau, had a major evolution through the series in how she feared (then ultimately accepted) to love. Her mother died giving birth to Alanna and her twin brother, and the loss devastated her father to the point of Alanna fearing the loss of herself should she ever dare to love, not just romantically but with other relationships as well. When she ultimately allows herself to open up to her first love, it doesn't decrease from her strength or determination, and she still fulfills all her goals and then some!

I hate the idea that women are diminished by building a family, like you can be strong like Brienne or strong like Catelyn but not both. I hope we see some of our characters create the next generation in the books' conclusion. This is even a theme that GRRM addresses, that our actions have a direct impact on how the future generations will develop.

I look forward to seeing what the next generation will look like from GRRM. He'll likely end up killing more characters than GoT (though he has a LOT more fodder to kill off and still end up with the same or similar characters) but whoever is left should at least be given complete and satisfying endings including what the world will look like in the next generation.

It's sad that an anime like Naruto explicitly addresses that you can't change the world in your own generation and that it will be your children and your grandchildren who disassemble the wheel - not you - and an adult and 'smart' show like GoT just totally ignores what the future generations will look like and is like 'OKAY WHEEL BROKEN NOW HOORAH'

but yes. It gets so tiring to have the constant idea that women can't be allowed to feel any emotions or have love or children or they lose their claim to strength - unless they're that stereotypical 'mothers r strong' thing. There's not enough stories that just say women can still be strong even if they love or have children.

To your point number 2, I thought at least Arya would be open to relationships again (not necessarily hunkering down and having kids and staying put) since she had her revelation with the Hound and didn't want to pursue revenge. In my headcannon, Gendry is on the boat with her (she still gets to travel but can have some human connection) and I wasn't even a Gendrya shipper. Also I don't care that it screws up Storm's End's leadership.

I just had a baby in January, and like your point 2.5 that it doesn't make me less important as a woman. I still go to work and contribute, I just now also have a dependent. Especially for the Starks, I would think that even if they wanted to do their own thing for awhile, they would also want to continue their line as a way to honor their parents and create a bond with others. I could definitely see Sansa finding a man that would take her name to keep a Stark in Winterfell.

I mean that's fine, because it's a totally better ending than what we got. In my headcanon Tyrion and Sansa marry, as well, and Jon gets dragged back by the ear to be king when they find out Bran is just bad at being a king. Unfortunately this isn't on screen, and so we can't really say it did happen.

And it's extra frustrating because Gendry being on the boat would have required zero explanation since no one - Gendry included -cares about Storm's End, and we've already established those two love each other. It was a deliberate choice to not do it.

Yeah, it's a terrible fandom opinion that's started infecting writers that a strong independent women always don't need no man and therefore cannot HAVE a man or she'll by default need him and then no longer be strong or independent. Since Starks are all about the pack anyway, it actually would suit them to have multiple children - I mean Ned certainly had quite a few - and literally none of them having even one child is beyond unbelievable.

I do think Sansa's the bare minimum most reasonable choice. She's Queen. A queen should have a consort and needs an heir just as much as a king does. If we're establishing she's Queen in the North, we need to also establish that she is going to have heirs. Pretending it would diminish her in any way when she's a queen of all things is pretty silly. It's almost like she took some kind of advice from Cersei about how love makes you weak and that you should love only your children - thus choosing not to marry anyone and not have any children - and that would be terrible.

He's basically a Watcher. He is meant to observe and not interfere. And really that's the only way to make his behavior make sense through the season. He can't get involved, so he just wargs around watching things and says cryptic, unhelpful stuff 99% of the time unless he's directly asked 'the right question'. When he 180 wheelies into being king it suddenly means all of his disinterest before was just...optional.

I think there is a way to do it but the show just ignores Bran until its convenient. They reference that Bran is rash in his training and eventually he's forced to leave the cave with the OG 3ER cause he came in contact with the night king and the magical wards keeping the others out failed. But in the show Bran somehow, on his own, finishes his training and becomes robo-wheelchair-guy.

I think the same in the books is semi-likely. Except that Bran wont become a robot and still maintain his sense of self, sort of like the struggle Arya is having in Feast and Dance. He comes back south to save his family.

OR

Bloodraven is manipulating Bran and attempting a forceful takeover of his mind to come back and manipulate everyone to get himself onto the throne.

A couple of somewhat related points that just RANKLE (particularly wrt Jon and Bran). First, after suffering through two disastrous rules by boy kings, everyone just agrees that, hey, let's go with another BOY KING with no experience ruling, military capability, or ANYTHING really that makes him a good choice. I mean, seriously--are people going to believe he's some mystical being? Why? And even if they do... is that really what they think it important in a king? Bran seems like the WORST choice!

And why would anyone believe Jon is a lost Targaryen heir based on the word of his brother and his best friend? Would you? Oh, we found a book among thousands of books when looking for info on dragon glass (I think that was what they were researching). Yeah, okay--what are the odds? And why would anyone take Sam and Bran's word for it? Just because?

Also: why would the north accept Sansa as a queen? There has never been a queen in the north to my knowledge. I believe that male heirs have been given precedence over female heirs in Westeros, and when the male line was extinct, the woman married and the husband often took the name of her line to continue the legacy. Also: despite Arya's bullsh*t statement that "Sansa is the smartest person I know" (yeah, okay, WHY? She was quite the naive dumbass when you last saw her, Arya), Sansa has ZERO experience leading anything or anyone. Another example of "because we said she's GREAT!" from the writers, with very little substance to back it up. To believe she would be considered a good choice as queen, even if that were a reasonable possibility in Westeros, is just silly...

And speaking of which--if the North becomes independent, Dorne sure as hell would follow. They were the last to accept the Targs as rulers, and then only through a marriage alliance. It is ridiculous to believe that the other 6 kingdoms would go along with being subject to sovereign rule, except for the North. I would expect The Reach, Dorne, and most of the principle seats that were independent kingdoms at some point to demand the same as the North--independence, or perhaps a loose alliance like I think the Free Cities are.

Sorry for the rant on someone else's rant, the more I think about the "logic" of this shitshow, the angrier I get.

You make a good point. It was one reason I struggled to believe anyone in Westeros could ever really accept Dany as a queen, much less find her appealing - she was directly the daughter of the mad king and she liked burning things. That hadn't worked out for them in the past, why would they be enthused to embrace it again? Boy kings haven't turned out well, so why in the world are they insisting on repeating that mistake?

It's true that it'd be hard to prove Jon was a true Targaryen heir, but there are many people who witnessed him riding a dragon. It's well known that only a Targaryen can ride a dragon, so his amicable relationship with Dany's dragons and his very public riding of one during the Nightlong should at least confirm he has the blood of a Targaryen, if not...you know...whose or how much.

I can accept Sansa as Queen on the basis of her being the only Stark there and the North basically being emptied of any house not directly loyal to the Starks anymore - the Vale directly supports her, too. Sure, they'd rather Bran be King, but he's now king of the south. Arya's her younger sister, and Jon is illegitimate and beyond the wall. Her being made queen isn't surprising. Her being a good queen is what's surprising to me.

But also yes, the 'Sansa is so smart' thing was annoying, it was like when Sansa started just praising Cersei so much, like the writers just really wanted you to believe it. Same thing, different characters, same intent.

Since Yara and Dorne didn't even want to support the Starks anyway, why NOT go independent? Did Bran warg them and make them decide to not do that? Maybe it's just that the people of the lands are so decimated by various wars and the Thanos snap that accidentally emptied the Reach, Riverlands, Storm's End and who knows what else, that independent nations just couldn't sustain themselves?

You pointed out something that’s been on my mind for a long while now. Sam was never released of his vows, becoming a maester is all well and good but it was specifically to become a maester for the nights watch. Is everyone, especially northerners, just totally okay with his desertion?? Also Grand Maesters are appointed and it looks like he hasn’t many chains forged, so how the hell did he become a grand maester in the first place???

That said, I don't fully have a problem with him being a Maester of KL if the Night's Watch were disbanded because it's unnecessary. I have a problem with him being in the NW and a Maester and still having a wife and children and maybe? lands?

But then they also kept the NW and there's not really an answer for why he shouldn't then go back to the NW. It's not like KL needs a Maester. Bran is just the Citadel + deleted scenes rolled up into one person.

I’m not mad at being a grand maester, I think it’s a wonderful idea but it doesn’t add up how he is able to get there. We’re just all suppose to forget about his past I guess

We as the audience can assume the nights watch is useless now. I don’t think bran relayed to anyone that the cot are the cause of the ww. However the wall was erected and the nw established after the first long night to ensure that they are prepared just in case they ever come back. So in universe it makes sense why the nw is still around, just in case.

I completely agree with you. After it was over, I thought it was strange that a medieval show did not have at least one wedding in the finale! I'm not talking for romance sake, but practically speaking.

There should have been waaaay more bickering over who got to be king and I doubt unnamed Dornish Prince and Yara would just be cool with Sansa declaring independence. This is where a marriage alliance could have been created.

I really don't care about big battles. I want to know how Westeros is getting repopulated!

Arya leaving was ridiculous to me on many levels. It was too "Disney ending" and I'm rolling my eyes thinking of that single Stark ship conquering the world. With Westeros decimated and so empty, would they really let a bunch of men go off to their certain deaths? And with a princess who would provide Sansa a firm alliance to the six kingdoms? (Like, Arya marrying Gendry?) Yes, her brother is king, but he could be easily be murdered any time and they could vote someone in that doesn't think the North (is it Northlandia now?) should be independent.

I guess with only so much time, you can't get this all in, but I feel like this was the stuff that made the show riveting to me. Don't get me wrong, the dragons are cool too.

I'm guessing if Arya leaves in the book, it'll be less upbeat and more about her not being able to deal with what she's seen/done, kinda like she can't return home. But I also have a problem with her and Brienne leaving Sansa. As a new queen, she seems vulnerable to attack.

It's funny because I was really worried how bitter the bittersweet part would be. I was left more upset about the sweet parts! Everyone got what they wanted in the end (minus Dany). Didn't feel right, ha!

I agree. Political marriages are HUGE in Westeros, but D&D have basically consistently disdained them. The closest we get is Cersei screwing Euron for his loyalty, but then it's probably not necessary and she mostly did it because she was Cersei.

The unnamed Dornish prince could well have married Sansa, or Yara could have married Bran, in a weird kind of mirror to her brother being a Stark. Something. Yara and Robin. Some kind of compromise that isn't just Tyrion having a 20 charisma score.

Arya leaving is basically absurd on every level that isn't 'well she's embodying Nymeria' but really she's already a traveling warrior princess so why does she also need to sail into the west and be gone forever to do that? Why is she less of a warrior if she does marry Gendry, the only male she's remotely attracted to? Is she like 'if you can't look like jaqen sometimes I'll just get bored'?

Why leave your family when being with your family is what drove you for years and the identity of Arya Stark was what you refused to let go of and made you leave the Faceless Men? You basically just abandoned it anyway.

I am more a fan of the fantasy - between GoT and WoT's balance of fantasy and politics, I'm a WoT lover - but you can't JUST look at the flashy things and then refuse to flesh out everything else. ESPECIALLY when you insisted on killing the white walkers early so the end could be about the human element instead.

Apparently with the death of Varys all traitors and poisoners are gone in the world and no one is at threat for anything except if someone irritates Greyworm and he has to get his slapping hand ready.

Honestly, it just fails as bittersweet because it's either bland or sicklysweet.

Apparently the lesson is that the best king is none of the above, the best king is a bard who can entertain his people with a cool story. But also creep them out with his blank stare so they're too scared to rebel.

Jon should have been King and Bran should have been by his side as Master of Whispers. Bran can't deal with the politics of the realm but Jon can. Having Bran and his endless information would have only made it easier to rule for Jon.

I like your points and I agree. The story is all about families and lineages, among other things, and to see all these houses just collapse without any real indication of survival is really strange to me and feels out of place in this universe.

I think it's really that D&D never cared about anything of that, and so didn't think it was important to show about their lineages and families and stuff. They just thought the powerful message of breaking the wheel - something no one in Westeros wanted and was what a mad tyrant claimed to want to do when she burned KL - was more important than just...tying up the loose ends with people's stories and family lines. They just outright took a 'for BIG OOPS' eraser to the Reach to get rid of all the random lords there.

Also what about the bittersweet stuff? Jon killing his lover/queen/aunt and then being exiled to far north, 6 kingdoms being ruled by a robot, Dany dying without no words or legacy( we don’t even know where Drogon is now) is just fucking sad and a tragedy.

Jon having to rule the 7 kingdoms even though he doesn’t want it, and trying to make things work is bittersweet. Sansa having to abide by that, Tyrion being made hand even though he plotted against Dany too is bittersweet. The fact that we know bran knew all this, the fact that Sansa betrayed Jon’s trust is just there... making consequences for these things would be bittersweet.

We are suppose to take it like Jon is living happily ever after, after HE KILLED THE LOVE OF HIS LIFE ???? Like what?

No consequences to Danys death, no sense to the councils decision, no sense to keep the 7 oops no 6 kingdoms together.

Well, I assumed Ygritte was the love of his life, but yes they didn't seem to balance things well at all. Things that are supposedly meant to be 'sweet' just don't ring true or end up seeming bitter, so the 'bitter' things just stack up on it as well and it just feels cold, not bittersweet.

To be honest, with the way things turned out for Jon, I didn't have a huge issue with Bran as the king. Maybe I'm just choosing to pick up what the writers put down because I don't want to drive myself crazy. But, Jon declining the title was different than Bran "not wanting to be king." Jon was truly fed-the-fuck-up with the war, with the off screen torment between knowing he was the rightful heir and knowing what it would mean for Dany. The dissonance he experienced between his obligation to lead and his obligation and love for the queen had to have been torturous considering his character. And then the back-to-back betrayal between her murdering innocents and him having to stab her through the heart? I don't know, maybe I allowed my brain to connect the dots (and fill in emotional spaces) based on what I observed, but after Dany's death, it just couldn't have been Jon. As long as Jon is the one to kill Dany, he just can't be king.

That all being said, I think Bran is suiting not JUST because he doesn't want it, it's due to his MASS historic knowledge of Westeros and its experiences. And I don't think being "creepy" in the sense that he spoke very few words and had the far off stare that comes with knowing EVERYTHING is a strong enough factor to disqualify him. It was a fault that the writers 1) gave him this far off, detached weirdness in order to remind people that he's different now, and 2) failed to show us his full capabilities.

I don't think he did nothing and has accomplished nothing. We saw a lot of Bran action in previous seasons that just got LEFT there. We saw him discover Jon's true origin. We saw him face the Night King. We can ASSUME he's seen all major battles, leadership styles, conflicts, strategic successes; and sure, he wasn't present nor did he influence most of these events but that kind of immeasurable knowledge equates to some experience, no? Not to mention the ability to warg and essentially teleport his mind anywhere in the world?

IDK, maybe I'm the only one on board with Bran (who, as a reminder, isn't even Bran at all) - but I find it kind of poetic that the one who ends up leading mankind is essentially an abstract "being" that holds all of our combined memories and experiences.

The problem I have with Bran's qualifications is that they're perfect...for a position other than king. Just knowing history is not enough to lead a kingdom, let alone 6. We don't generally elect history professors as world leaders, because just knowing history isn't enough to make you a good or compelling leader. Bran should be on the council, but he shouldn't lead it.

Personally, I would have liked to see Jon be king because of Sam saying that it would be best for the lands and pointing out that Dany wouldn't step aside for him and this proved she didn't care about the lands but only herself. Still, even if Jon refused, there were other, better choices. Bran just wasn't a good choice. He can't carry his kingship, because he can't inspire loyalty and support in people, and he shows no capabilities of leadership. Especially since he's not really 'Bran' anymore, so any experience he might have gotten as a boy doesn't really count anymore.

I agree with criticisms about there being no debate about Jons candidacy for the throne, but one thing I don’t really see being discussed are the implications of Bran actually being king. I think this is in part due to his actual 3ER powers not being adequately described in the show.

If we accept some level of omniscience, then that really does represent a radical shift from past monarchs in the sense that bran should be able to detect those scheming for power in a way which would devastate the realm, if not directly then through his ability to explore their past actions and motivations. This in a way ends the game of thrones for the time being. Should have been explained more though.. ala the voting in future rulers bit, will bran live 1000 years?, etc.. With this paradigm shift should come a new order but they kind of glossed over it because they didnt know how to write for such a powerful being

THANK YOU. Beyond your points about the fact that this ending makes it feel like there’s no literal future for Westeros via heirs and bloodlines, it also feels... bleak?

Many of the endings were supposed to be happy, yet they were largely void of love—romantic, familial, and platonic. Almost everyone’s endings felt painfully lonely.

The Starks, who fought so hard to reunite, just go their separate ways, likely never to see each other again, and they don’t seem too bothered by it. Sansa is without her family when she’s coronated. Arya sails off to parts unknown without any friends or family by her side. Jon is condemned and goes North. Bran is basically a robot ruling in King’s Landing. No one even lovingly mentions the family they lost like Ned or Robb. They just... leave.

Friendships also seem to fall by the wayside. We never see Arya mourning Sandor, or Jon saying goodbye to Sam after Dany’s death, or Tyrion caring that much about Varys’ death. Everyone on the Council—even those who were friendly before—now just seem to bicker aimlessly. Besides Tormund and Jon, and Brienne and Pod, it feels like no one got to stay buddies and live near each other.

AND, finally, the romantic relationships besides Gilly and Sam’s all end horribly. Jon kills Dany. Sansa and Tyrion are hinted at, then totally forgotten. Missandei is decapitated and Greyworm, void of any joy, moves to her home without her. Jaime leaves Brienne for his evil sister and dies. Arya rejects Gendry. Not everyone needs to get a romantic plotline or ending, but man... they all suffered and lost so much, that I had hoped that more than Sam and Gilly would get to build a future with someone who made them feel safe and loved.

And your 2.5 point is SO important. D&D have no idea how to write satisfying conclusions for female characters because they don’t seem to grasp that women don’t have to be childless, alone, and emotionally detached to be strong/badass. The notion that a woman who wants a family is uninteresting and that any woman who gets married and has children has somehow sacrificed her strength and complexity SUCKS. Sansa always dreamed of having a loving husband and children and, sure, she’s not naive and immature any more, but she can still want that! That doesn’t make her a silly little girl! And being a survivor of sexual abuse doesn’t make someone incapable of ever having rewarding relationships!

Tl;dr: Almost everyone just kind of ends up without any love in their life, be it familial, platonic, or romantic. Everything feels very lonely.

One of the chief problems is that I think they failed to understand what motivated characters beyond what made them look cool. They failed to understand how important family was to Starks, they failed to understand that Jaime cared about more than just his sister, they failed to understand how Cersei would handle losing her kids or facing the younger, more beautiful woman about to take her crown, they failed to understand what it is that motivates Tyrion, they failed to understand Arya's motivations, and they ultimately failed to understand why Dany would end up going mad and so couldn't execute it convincingly. They also failed to understand why Jon and Dany might get together except that they were both attractive, so they couldn't portray that relationship convincingly and ruined the important arc all revolving around that.

And thus, because they didn't get anything about their characters, they utterly failed at giving them any endings or conclusions that actually felt happy for them, and instead ended up with some kind of hollow and unfulfilled lifetimes for all of them.

I think Jon could have been named King, but turned it down out of grief and named Bran as his successor. Jon is kind of dumb like that. But Jon could have gone to the wall as his own choice to avoid his claim to the throne hanging over the 7 kingdoms.

The 7 kingdoms could probably have dissolved into a federation of friendly states where the nobles of each house sat on a council of advisors to the king. The small council is more of a civil service. Bran's role as an absolute monarch makes little sense since he has no armies of his own, so he would be more of a figurehead president needing the assent of the houses that he governs and mediating between them. Bran would have been a stronger pick if he had more involvement in taking down the army of the dead.

Jon declining the throne and handing it away would have been perfectly reasonable. I think it would have been equally likely of him to take the crown or reject it, but not being named in the first place and instead just handing it to Bran with no contest is silly.

Since the 7 kingdoms are so named because they used to be 7 independent nations and KL was ruined anyway, there's really no reason FOR a king. I guess they needed it to free Tyrion and Jon, but once the hostage situation was done, they could easily have dissolved all that.

Jorah killing Dany would have destroyed him. I feel it was a mercy that he died with his queen being the savior he always saw her as and never had to live to see her become the tyrant he thought she'd save the world from. That said, it would have been a more convincing tragedy to have Jorah forced to kill the girl he'd protected and lived for since she was practically a child than Jon kill the woman he had the hots for over the span of about a year.

When it comes down to it, after everything that happened, after they literally listed all of the reasons why jon would be the best choice, the only reason Jon didn't become king is cause Greyworm would be mad. Great writing right there.

Yeah, see...I’m interested in the political maneuvering that gets done to solve problems by uniting houses and forging deep bonds—GRRM will 100% have numerous issues going on after everything is said and done, and there’s no way he’s goin to skip on the details of who goes where, and why, so we have a clear picture of how the realm will sit in the future.

That’s the problem with the shows ending...what they lay out fails before the end of the show due to numerous things that make no sense, so we can’t even develop a working concept if the future of the realm that will occur in our minds after the end of the story. George will tie things up but leave room for the imagination, just like how things are at the end of each book he writes, where there’s enough room to theorize for years and years...I see the ending of his book being the same way, except having a satisfying conclusion to start new theories from.

(Also Edmure is mocked for deciding to vie for the throne and beginning to list off perfectly reasonable qualifications one might have for ruling. Excuse him for being practical, he wants the throne so he's an automatic 'no', apparently.)

Thank you for making the point about marriage and families! I felt exactly the same way and I think that it’s the worst part of the episode. You’re absolutely right that the whole story is about family and the values that your familial and cultural ties instill in you. Jon and Tyrion even make that point on screen and confirm it to be true and yet the reunion of family trope is not only subverted but completely butchered at the end. It’s ridiculous that the chosen monarchs are people who for whatever reason will not procreate. I think one of the major themes of the show has been to remind us that fairness and justice among men doesn’t exist and that freedom is the ultimate value in this world. How is it, then, that we’re just to assume that the “republic” will just peacefully continue to exist and not result in another brutal war of succession upon Bran the Sterile’s death? And of course Sansa will manoevre to make a match with another old northern house and produce children who have claims to both the throne in the North and the throne of the 6 Kingdoms! And you’re going to tell me that Gendry just lets Arya run away westward and have adventures without him? Then why the hell did they even connect in the first place?
It really does seem like they focused so much on subverting expectations and tropes that they forgot about effective writing, too, and that just sucks!

Bran the Boring is not going to make a good king because his only appeal is 'he doesn't want it'.

But when they offer it to him it’s clear he knows the offer is coming and has travelled South specifically for that reason. Bran plays the ultimate Game of Thrones and becomes a powerful psychic King willing to see hundreds of thousands die for his ambitions.

The worst plot hole in the episode is Jon and Tyrion being worried hearing Dany speak Dothraki or Valyrian to her Dothraki and Unsullied in the square, saying she'll create an empire over the whole world. And we know they understood her because they literally talk to one another about her speech afterwards.

But how do they know what she said? Tyrion was literally established in the previous episode having poor Valyrian when he tried to talk to the Unsullied guard. He literally did not know how to say a simple sentence, stumbling and fucking it up numerous times in increasingly worse ways. The Unsullied eventually told him he speaks Common Tongue because Tyrion simply couldn't say one sentence in Valyrian. There is no way he understands an entire speech from Dany.

Jon needs no explanation why he shouldn't understand a word Dany said if Tyrion couldn't speak it after spending far longer among Dany's forces, literally living in Essos for what, years? If Tyrion cannot speak it Jon definitely cannot.

I believe it's mentioned at some point that along with the castle he loses the wench. This is why he's so disgruntled over the ensuing seasons.

I mean he could be given back Lollys, but she was kind of a package deal with the castle, right? Why marry him to someone who has a much less important castle than him now and then not also give him the castle?

2.5 - I disdain the concept that Arya or Brienne or Sansa marrying or having children would somehow make them less warriors, less independent, or too 'feminine' somehow. It doesn't make men less manly or valorous to be married, so why do women get robbed of all development and become 'baby factories' or 'just about men' if they get married or have kids?

I think the endings of these 3 were okay-ish and I don't think the writers were trying to weaken women or imply they were weaker for marrying/having children.

I hate how Arya was handled from her HOBW ending to the last time we see her right before the end, mysteriously popping up next to JS to provide some exposition. Period. I do think they got an idea from GRRM in this though. Much like Frodo is damaged from ring-bearing, I think Arya will be damaged in the books. She's a little girl obsessed with vengeance. We saw what that did to Dany. There's nothing left for her, so she leaves.

Brienne joined Renly's Rainbow Guard, or just King's Guard in the show. With no further context, and her entire story about becoming a Knight, I would think she made the decision to not wed or conceive and her family...went along with it? Someone outfitted her. Being a KG was considered an honor for anyone, first born or not, so being the first female KG member probably means quite a bit to the Tarths.

That leaves Sansa and her Queen of the North, which I think is the weakest ending of these 3 and somehow suffers the most from the lack of... everything. She's Queen because... She's Ned's daughter. Her main concerns throughout wind up being pointless. Her master stroke was sniffing out LF's plot and letting Tyrion know about JS parentage? He's still a bastard with no rights. She didn't bring the Vale armies. However, if they had shoehorned in some romantic interest for her so she could marry, or get pregnant, I think that would have been atrocious especially with the breakneck speed of this season. I think its more than reasonable that the ending is about her and the current moment, and that she will get married in the future. She's been married off for everyone's political gain, this time she can do it for her own, but its not a part of this story.

Well one problem with 'Arya is too broken by her need for revenge to stay with her family' is that they already had the moment in the bells where Sandor convinces her to let that go. It's a pointless scene if they were just going to loop back to 'and then she becomes the Hound'.

Her leaving I could potentially see, but I think it would need more - like maybe her family is just decimated by the war and she is a shell of herself and has to go find herself again. Her going on the adventure and taking someone like Gendry with her I could also see. Her wandering off on her own just seems too lonely for someone whose list is empty and who gave up her quest.

Brienne's ending isn't bad in a vacuum, I just don't like that it's piled on top of everyone else also choosing to be celibate, and the fact that her family now has to deal with this. Since she chose to become non-celibate with Jaime anyway, her having a child wouldn't be completely impossible for her character even if she did end up Kingsguard. Though I personally don't get why she is one anyway - she's now a knight, recognized as a warrior hero, and she'd want to protect Sansa or Arya way more than Bran. Did she just do it to honor Jaime's memory or something?

I mean, they built up Sansa and Tyrion's relationship every episode of this season, and they have the backdrop of a previous one. We also got that Crypt scene. Her choosing to marry him for political reasons or other reasons would have been a fine path for her character and for his, as it would resolve different character notes for both of them. Her having a baby isn't necessary - and in fact I don't think anyone in an established relationship needed to be pregnant in the end. Just the implication they would marry/have kids in the future would be enough. In the current ending, it's basically the opposite. Multiple characters either physically can't have kids or are sworn to celibacy, and basically no characters have a reasonable conclusion of 'ah yes, they'll marry that person' much less actually have married them.

I think Sansa being Queen is so weak because it's a book thing. Sansa becoming either Queen of the North or the 7k is really the only reasonable place for her character to end up aside maybe from dying, but the showrunners just hiccuped over her earning that place by swapping her out with Jeyne and effectively handing her the keys to the castle. Thus, she never spent time uniting the north behind her, she just got them as a prize for defeating Ramsay. Then her role and position didn't really change for the next two seasons.

Sansa was always gonna be Queen of the NortH. D&D decided that the moment there was backlash from her wedding night rape by Ramsay.

It was the least surprising ending tbh. I kinda think it has zero to do with the ending GRRM gave them because there is zero foreshadowing in any of the books. Book Samsa and show Sansa are two different characters.

Bran getting the throne was a hat tip to Stark fans. Hey the Starks won y'all. Except it makes as much sense as crowning Podrick or meat pie.

Dany and Jon's ending seems less authentic than a quick way to clear the legitimate heirs and give a token reason to elect a monarch because Targaryens 1 and 2 are out of contention for reasons.

D&D are terrible at things like subtlety, subtext or conceptualization. They think unless a woman can physically lift more weights than a man, is emotionally distant and a tyrannical bitch or snide and misandric she is not a strong woman.

They needed to drive home the point that Jon would have made a good king but continuing to rely on heirs would just create another Dany at some point in the future. So let the noblemen choose and have Jon/Tyrion make the case for Bran, who holds all the history of Westeros and can ensure we learn from our mistakes and not repeat them. It was somewhat there, but those points got muddled around in all the other dialogue and poor execution.

It kind of boils down to one problem; they pretty much stopped introducing new characters in the show once they no longer had books to lean on, and minor characters just stopped doing anything at all, they just ceased to exist.